Speech from the Financial Services Forum Annual Dinner 2017

I was honoured to be asked to give the keynote speech at the Financial Services Forum Annual Dinner at the Guildhall in November.

My theme was innovation, disruption and trust building.

You can find the text of the speech following:

Thank you David, for your kind introduction and to the Forum for inviting me to speak here tonight.

The Financial Services Forum has always held a place in my heart since I remember joining in the early years of my career whilst at Deutsche Bank and, of course, I was humbled to win the Marketer of the Year Award in 2008.

I remember being very nervous that night and thinking that I would never win. The chat on my table was excited especially when one of the team came back from a loo break and said that they had overheard someone saying that they had voted for me! Then another person came back from a quick ciggie and she said that she too had found people who had voted for me. So my advice is if you are up for an award tonight, and want to know your chances then I’d hangout in the loo or go for a fag!

Anyone nominated for an award tonight – I wish you the very best of luck.

Tonight I earn my dinner by taking a few minutes of your time to talk about technology and financial services. Finance has been an early adopter of new technology – from the abacus to the mainframe computer and as an industry it has always been critical to our economy. We are blessed that the UK consumer is very open to trying new things. ClearScore, my company, has taken an approach to empowering people with their credit data and we have seen fast adoption, now our product is used by nearly 5.4m users in the UK and 250,000 in South Africa. We have delivered our fair share of disruption. But as I have built my career and operated in our industry I ask myself the question:

What are financial services really for?

Obviously at some level it’s about capital. Looking after money and assets, growing them, making them flow, managing risk. But I also think that at a very deep level, especially in the capitalist democracies in which we live and that are so under fire at the moment, finance is about managing and growing a very different form of capital and that’s social capital or to put it another way trust. In the delicate eco-system that is our economy and our industry, especially in the UK and Europe, trust is in danger of continuing to diminish.

This year’s Edelman Trust Barometer survey showed that still less than half of people trusted our industry. Financial services are the least trusted of all the business sectors and that is as true today as it was in 2007 before the financial crisis. You’ll be pleased to hear that in another survey from 2015 58% of people said all of us working in financial services were at best unprofessional and at worst dishonest.

The good news is it’s not just us. Almost every profession from politician, to journalist, to doctor, have seen decreases in trust over the past 20 years. The media is no longer respected, replaced with news of the royal wedding and Trump’s constant tweeting.

This collapse in trust is very significantly problematic for our economy. Every economy that has thrived has had embedded within it a complex mesh of bonds of trust that help to lower transaction costs. Whether it is the stock markets in the UK or US, or chaebol based families in South Korea, or the local SME business groups that are prevalent across Germany, all of these myriad structures help to make capital flow by creating trust between people.

Almost all change in financial services requires our system to work together at very many levels. We need to operate in an environment where the consumer, the regulator and the industry trusts each other. Now, of course, this mustn’t be blind trust but it also must assume a baseline of trustworthiness otherwise the barriers that we put up to working together, and winning the trust of the consumer, will become insurmountable.

Technology can help build both financial and social capital and it can do it fast. Look no further than Bitcoin. Just this week this new currency broke the $10,000 mark for the first time. The learnings from Bitcoin are numerous. The technology is opensource and transparent. The currency solves several major transaction issues for users in major industries. The system relies on multiple entities working together, competing to create coins but collaborating to innovate around use cases. I’m sure there will be lots of debate over your main course about the outlook for cryptocurrencies but what opensource distributed ledger technology has been able to do is build significant amounts of trust in a very short amount of time and captured increasing amounts of financial capital.

In the UK, for many reasons from Brexit to increasing inequality, I believe we are at a turning point for our economy. Historically we have enjoyed a particularly strong base of trust. From social norms, to our class structure and enduring entities from the Bank of England, to our courts, to the local pub, that have served us very well. And banking has contributed significantly to this system.

The profession of banker was always traditionally seen as solid and dependable. Banks were full of people who were part of our communities, working from buildings on every high street, who were known and were trustworthy and trusted. Products and decisions were simpler, and more transparent.

This reputation for trust across financial services didn’t happen by accident – it was hard won over centuries. We gather here today in the Guildhall at the heart of the City of London Corporation. The corporation is the oldest continuous democratic commune in the world – having existed for over 2000 years. From the Roman’s, to William the Conqueror, to the Stuart’s, the City has survived as a bulwark for the advantages of democracy and free trade, thriving through the rule of law and lots of social ties fostered through Freemen, and Councils, Courts, Halls and organisations like the Financial Services Forum, and of course, the very many bars and pubs that we enjoy to this very day.

But despite this history, our reputation has severely compromised. However, I strongly believe that we can use our collective will, our capital, our ingenuity and technology to redress the balance.

Today the Prime Minister, the Newspaper editor, the CEO are rarely very trusted. Much of the collapse in our reputation is connected with this lack of trust in authority. These authority figures have been replaced by “people like me”. Witness the power of TrustPilot or Glassdoor.

Technology can help bridge the divide between all of us and our customers. The social web, chatbots, artificial intelligence and machine learning fused with real conversations facilitated through video for example allow cost-efficient interactions with a more human feel. Experiences like Cleo which uses AI to chats to me on Facebook about my money every morning, or ClearScore’s financial education chatbots used by more than a million people – these interactions are involving, warm and funny. This can help bring back the human whilst leveraging the efficiency and convenience of a technology enabled bank in your pocket which has often removed human warmth and connection from financial services.

There is no doubt that much of our mind space whether we work for established institutions or small start-ups is dominated by the idea of disruption and disrupters. At one level this is a good thing. The regulator wants more competition, there are still very many under-served consumers, large institutions struggle with new technology, data is opening up all the time, and in many cases markets needs to be made more efficient.

But at another level disruption seem oppositional and aggressive – it creates tension – thoughts of the winners and the losers – it creates sides. And whilst we need to compete fiercely in the market for the good of the customer, dedicating ourselves to delivering better services, at lower cost, more efficiently. We also, if we are to re-establish trust in our industry and rebuild our collective reputation, need to actively support each other and collaborate more.

When I see disrupters attacking banks for over-charging on a foreign exchange transaction, or scandal after scandal from the investment banks, or the government using the regulator through PPI to redistribute money back into an ailing economy, or major financial institutions being reluctant to embrace open banking I wonder whether we are not putting short term commercial gain above longer-term maintenance of the trust that is fundamental to our success. We may win the individual battles, but lose the collective war.

What we create when we attack each other, either through our messaging or our business models, is a confused and untrusting consumer. That consumer is increasingly frustrated with the services with which they are being provided without any real understanding of why they feel this way. All they are left with is a vague sense that they are being ripped off by a system that they don’t understand and is full of bad people doing bad things.

Now whilst there are those in our industry who do the wrong things, most people I know who work for financial services companies are talented, committed people, like you and me, trying to do good things for our customers whilst operating in this sea of mistrust and confusion. Certainly the 160 people who work for ClearScore are some of the most committed and trustworthy people I have the pleasure to know – your teams will be the same.

So, we must continue to execute the obvious functions of our industry well – manage capital, be prudent with risk, help our customers make good financial decisions, create fair and balanced products. But our mission must be to work together to build back the social capital in our industry and our economy.

Tomorrow when we are back at our desks, as we think about our business and brand strategies, or develop our propositions, talk with colleagues and customers, or invent our next new innovation; whether we work for the largest of banks, or the smallest of start-ups, whether we are the disrupted or the disrupters we should take a moment to think back to this evening, to this wonderful room, and the history it represents.  We should dream big about the application of technology to solve real customer problems. But above all everyone of us should dedicate ourselves to continuing to win back the trust of our nation through hard work and our ingenuity collaborating to build a better, more trusted, more trustworthy financial services industry. To achieve this would be a true contribution of which we all can be rightly proud.

Thank you.

Google to Alphabet: smart move but not radical at all

First published in Marketing Magazine 11th August 2015

The move from Google to Alphabet is far from radical; it’s well trodden as a business model by FMCG giants like P&G and Unilever, argues Justin Basini, co-founder and CEO at ClearScore.

With the creation of a holding company called Alphabet they are starting to look more like a Procter & Gamble or Unilever

The blog post announcing the rebranding of the Google into Alphabet this morning has taken everyone a bit by surprise. The markets have generally reacted positively with a 5% rise in the stock with the normal commentary both good and bad. We should admire Larry, Sergey and Eric that for once, in our world of obsessive management of investor expectations they have actually managed to steal a march on the millions of eyes watching Google.

Tradtional and well proven model

Many commentators have hailed this as a “radical” restructure adopting a model akin to Berkshire Hathaway. However, from a brand management perspective the move is treading a traditional and well proven model. With the creation of a holding company called Alphabet they are starting to look more like a Procter & Gamble or Unilever: that is a holding company with a wide portfolio of businesses and brand assets. The manifest benefits of this approach that has served the packaged good behemoths for over 100 years will deliver undoubted benefit to Google going forward.

Nobody likes companies that are too powerful, witness the fall of Tesco as it sought to become ubiquitous and got out of control

There are consumer benefits. Nobody likes companies that are too powerful. Witness the fall of Tesco as it sought to become ubiquitous and got out of control. Imagine if the brands we buy from P&G were not Ariel, Fairy, Pantene, Pampers, Gilette, Max Factor, Oral-B, Duracell, Lenor, Clearblue, Vicks but all of them called Procter & Gamble? We would start to freak out that one company could be so pervasive and dominant in our lives. As Google has broadened their offerings from search to email, to office apps, to mobile phones, to laptops, to household control, to cars; all of these being linked very clearly to the Google name creates the same concerns and worries. Moving to a house of brands under Alphabet will help manage some of these risks and drive growth.

Privacy concerns will manifest at Alphabet

The establishment of lots of different brands potentially may make it considerably harder for us to all understand where our data and information is going

Next, whilst taking the brand benefit, the establishment of a central infrastructure for Alphabet with central management and resources will allow assets to be shared across the different businesses. It is in this sharing that I think the most concerns may arise. Collection and manipulation of data, often playing close to privacy concerns, is hard-wired into Google and will therefore manifest itself at Alphabet. The establishment of lots of different brands potentially may make it considerably harder for us to all understand where our data and information is going. If I use Google search is this going to be shared with my separately branded self-driving car or my central home control unit?

Google has struggled with transparency

I’d also bet that Twitter will be an Alphabet company in the next 12 months

Brand trust is built through transparency and openness. Google has struggled with this in the past and many people don’t trust the brand. This potentially becomes much more complex in a holding company structure. For perspective, the consumer packaged goods companies have wrestled with this as well. They know a huge amount about their consumers across different brands and have experimented with cross promotion by using this understanding at a holding brand level, exploring whether consumers want a direct relationship with the P&G or Unilever brand. Results have been very patchy – people tend to be more suspicious and wary, rather than welcoming. In our hearts we like products and brands that do one thing well, rather than interacting with huge mega-corporations that know rather too much about our habits for comfort.

Alphabet is an engineering company, not an ad business

The last reason why this strategic change shouldn’t surprise is that it is a natural fulfilment of the vision that Sergey Brin and Larry Page outlined 11 years ago when they founded the Google. They have always wanted Google to be an engineering company in the broadest sense. Google is now an information and advertising business. The move to establishing Alphabet allows them to build different competencies and leverage different structures to solve a broader set of problems. Given the astonishing rise of Google and the undoubted benefit that it has brought to the world and all of us in such a short space of time this could be really exciting.

I predict that the move to Alphabet will be successful and create value for shareholders, and hopefully the world. I’d also bet that Twitter will be an Alphabet company in the next 12 months!

Why the Ashley Madison hack has done amazing things for the brand

First published in Marketing Magazine 21st July 2015

The Ashley Madison hack is fascinating, says Justin Basini, co-founder and CEO at ClearScore, as it raises interesting questions about morality, marketing and privacy.

The Ashley Madison attack is the juiciest of all hacks so far perpetrated. This is not millions of dry boring credit card details only interesting to fraudsters. No, this is the details of 37m people who have, or want to have, affairs. Their details, including names, photos and even sexual fantasies could soon be up for public consumption.The group responsible for the hacking, the so-called ‘ImpactTeam’, have pitched this as a moral battle with them in the role of hero and Ashley Madison as the villains. The next few weeks will be fascinating to watch as the moral battle ebbs and flows.

Following the boost in brand awareness, the next test will be whether the consumer proposition is powerful enough to overcome brand distrust

As the morality play progresses, there is also a marketing war going on and it is being fought over three main fields of battle: brand awareness, consumer proposition and trust.

Every cheating cloud

The hack has done amazing things for the Ashley Madison brand. Previously a slightly illicit brand, now millions more people have heard of it and even better understand its offer.

If the hacked data is exposed to all there will also be millions of current users, lapsed users and suspicious spouses desperate to find out whether they or their partner has been exposed as a cheater. The publicity means Ashley Madison the brand gets an awareness boost and first interaction for “free”.

Following the boost in brand awareness, the next test will be whether the consumer proposition is powerful enough to overcome brand distrust.

What’s clear, whether you approve or not, is a platform which makes cheating more accessible is an attractive consumer proposition for some. But can it overcome the fact that any right-minded individual will now distrust the brand to keep their secrets?

Acceptable risk

In our world now of ubiquitous Tweeting, Facebooking and data in the cloud, I reckon for many the hack won’t make a jot of difference. They will continue to sign up in their millions and take their chances.

Once the acute coverage has died down, consumer irrationality will take over and they will conclude that Ashley Madison must have learnt its lesson and now be more secure and less hack prone. For lots of people, the power of the proposition will trump any brand distrust.

Of course, there is also the possibility that this could tank the brand

Of course, there is also the possibility that this could tank the brand. So I bet in the back rooms of Avid Media, the owners of Ashley Madison, they are already hatching a plan to rebrand and use the power of increased awareness of the proposition to launch afresh. Surely this contingency planning would only be sensible?

Criminal conscience

And finally what of the hackers? If you believe in their moral cause, then you should hope that they are pausing and thinking again about breaching the privacy of millions of not-so-innocent consumers. They may have the data but they don’t need to expose it.

You might hope if you want to see the end of a platform for cheating that they should be planning a denial of service attack to stop the Ashley Madison service from actually working.

This would be a much better way to achieve their aims but I suspect that really they don’t give a crap and just want to prove, yet again, that almost no IT system is hack-proof even those with the most salacious of personal information on them.

Whatever side you take, moral or marketing, and I hope you’ll share them here, there is no doubt that how you handle the worst of disaster situations, both looking for threat and opportunity, is in our hyper-connected world a must-do rather than a should-do activity for all marketers.

Apple Rumors: The iPhone 6, the iWatch and the Apple innovation engine

What and when will the next iPhone appear and will it be the iPhone 6? I blogged back in October 2011 at the disappointing launch of the iPhone 4S which was Apple's first major product launch post Steve Jobs that I thought that there were signs that the world's greatest industrial innovation engine was slowing. This has undoubtedly turned out to be true and Apple are now under serious pressure with their stock falling consistently. I am an avid watcher of Apple rumors mostly because I think they are a fascinating organisation that is going through huge change right now.

What is going on at Apple (I think)…

The press and markets are in a frenzy at the moment as hedge funds and investors drop Apple. They say that Apple are losing the war against Samsung in the high end mobile phone market, have no cheap iPhone option for developing markets and haven't released a breakthrough innovation in years. Here is what I think is going on……

The truth is that Apple have only started to come to grips with the loss of Steve Jobs in the past few months and what's more we shouldn't be surprised.

Steve Jobs was the tech-genius of his generation – a unique and irreplaceable leader. His loss will be felt in Apple and the world for many, many years. From the many people who I have talked to who have worked at Apple – it is an egotistical, difficult and political place to work. Remove the king pin from this type of corporate culture and a power vacuum results. This creates in-fighting and a land grab. Tim Cook has only recently started to come to terms with this with his sacking of Scott Forstall in October after the maps debacle and the appointment of Jonny Ive as a Steve Jobs replacement responsible for both hardware and software.

I think the top team at Apple are only now coming to terms with the absence of Jobs and in a place where they can get back to the tough process of innovation. They have some key challenges which they need to overcome in order to deliver a series of launches and products which will either underline Apple's dominance as an innovator or start the Microsoft style slow steady decline to mediocrity. With the up and coming changes to the iPhone franchise, the iPhone 5S, iPhone 6 or iWatch Apple need to prove their innovation capability in a post Jobs world. 

The most pressing problem for i-devices is software not hardware

iOS which spans iPhone, iPad is increasingly becoming THE operating system for Apple but it is not just looking old and tired but is behind on key usability features. The core strengths of iOS were always its functionality, usability, ease, consistency and reliability. It is still easy to use, consistent and reliable but it is now lagging in core features to make life and communications more functional. Android and Blackberry 10, even Windows 8 Phone, now have a significant advantage in really useful features that bring information, communication and organisation to my day. For example Blackberry with it's Personal and Office modes, or Windows 8 Phone with live tiles that tell me the weather, or Android with it's more integrated message centre. All these developments have left iOS lagging. Witness the wild success of the Evasion Jailbreak on iOS devices: 8,000,000 downloads so far to see how much demand there is for more functionality and flexibility. 

Here I am hopeful that the integration of software under Jonny Ive will deliver major benefit and improvements in functionality.

I think iOS 7 is going to be a big deal and it needs to be.

It needs to take the elegance and robustness of iOS and combine it with a more integrated and seamless communication feature set. Email needs to be overhauled, messaging needs to become integrated, communications from contacts integrated across channels, there are many improvements that can be made. It will also have a facelift I think. All this needs to be delivered in the next iPhone device which leads me onto my next thought on Apple rumors….

iPhone 5S will be next around April 2013, then the iPhone 6 in late November

Apple iphone 6 iphone 5SWhen is the next iPhone due? There is no doubt in my mind that Apple are convinced that the iPhone 5 is a good product and a worthy competitor to the Samsung SIII – Apple still believes in high end design principles based on consumer usability rather than fancy feature packing. And shipments back them up! The iPhone 5 continues to sell in huge numbers it was the No. 1 selling smartphone in Q4 2012. Yes the momentum in the market is for bigger smart phones. Samsung will reportedly launch their SiV in March and are manufacturing 100 million units. However I think that the next iPhone release that Apple will launch is a iPhone 5S with better specs, new iOS 7, a better camera, fingerprint reader (based on their acquisition of Authentec) and possibly NFC in April 2013. This next-generation iPhone would constitute a really good package that would sell on a par with the Samsung SiV. Pundits need to remember that there are millions of people locked into iOS, apps and music that can't easily change to Android or another system. This lock in keeps them loyal – with new hardware they stop being frustrated. 

However I do think that Apple will launch a larger screened (up to 5 inches) iPhone by late in the year. I think it will be longer not wider but will contain an IGZO screen that are stunning, thinner and better on battery life. This would represent a very strong new iPhone 6. It could be thinner, higher resolution, with longer battery life and with continued improvements in iOS 7 would again represent or be on parity with the best hardware in the market.

I also think that the cutting edge latest iPhones will continue to be premium priced. I cannot see any logic in Apple starting to launch cheaper products made out of worse materials. The only substantive difference between Apple hardware and others is it's feel, durability and premium quality. A Google Nexus 4 or a Samsung SIII just feel cheap compared to an iPhone. That's not to say that Apple won't refresh the iPhone 3 or 4 with updated specs and possibly cheaper, easier to manufacture changes that would mean the price point can drop to suit Chinese and developing market consumers.

The big test of the Apple innovation engine is coming 

With Google Glass, various start ups pushing wearable technology and the continued copying of Apple ideas and design ethos – Apple face a stern test. The strength of Apple as a company is that they take ideas which are breaking through and design them brilliantly so that they stand the test of time, and are so far ahead of the market that they retain a price premium for years. That's what the iPhone and MacBook Air have done. 

Let's be clear Google Glass is still a concept – they cost $1500 for goodness sake – hardly a mass consumer price point. What Apple are working on, from what I hear are technologies that create new mass markets. Wearable technologies are undoubtedly the next big battle ground. Whether it is an iWatch or an arm based iPad or indeed glasses Apple need to deliver a product which is truly functional, useful, elegant and able to capture the imagination and wallet of the mass consumer market. My personal take is that Apple will launch an iWatch either towards the end of this year or in Q1 2014. I doubt it will be before then because they will need to overcome the significant manufacturing, durability and functionality issues that will come with wearing the hardware on the wrist so close to the skin.

But let me underline that Apple needs to do something big.

They are a secretive company, they don't show off early stage products like Google have done with Glass. Jonny Ive says that the iPhone took nearly a decade of pushing and development to get to launch. Apple don't have a decade but given they are still the only fully integrated hardware and software company in the world they have some time to get their next big innovation ready – but, as they know, the clock is ticking not just on them creating an innovation but underlining that they have finally moved into a post-Steve Jobs innovation engine. 

What's your view on Apple rumors, the iPhone 6, the iWatch and Apple's innovation capability – why not leave a commnent?

Experiential marketing from British Airways

British Airways – engagement and media coming together for a great example of experiential marketing

Last week I came across this great experiential marketing example from British Airways in Victoria Station, London, UK. British Airways had created an installation where people could play a flight simulator game and win tickets to a destination. It was very popular with long queues (probably not what they intended!).  From a marketing perspective it was magnified by the clever use of the digital media across the station from the main digital display boards to the smaller digital boards which were all part of the brand experience.

It would be interesting to see the ROI on this activity but it was very engaging and opportunities to view must have been high in the experiential marketing case study. It was in partnership with Orlando so I would imagine that some of the costs were shared which would have improved it's cost effectiveness. 

Why not sign up to my blog? Click here.


This morning as I was waking up my 3 year old daughter Jemima came into bed for a cuddle. It was cold and she snuggled under the covers putting her head under the duvet. I heard a little voice coming up from beside me, "Dad come under the covers with me." So I dutifully dived my head down under. 

I said to her, "we can't see anything in here," and she replied, "all we can see is the dark."

This reply struck me. How many times do we encounter situations where we dismiss a situation and don't try to see in the dark? How often do we shut down lines of exploration or thinking because we feel we are in the dark and deprived of sensory input or data?

What about trying to understand how people are responding to your website, landing page or proposition? How many times do we just default to, "we need another tool and more data." Sure this is sometimes the right answer but most often it's an excuse not to really think and use our intuition to determine through the darkness an answer to the problem. You'll probably get it mostly right by seeing through the dark and even if you don't pushing yourself will help you develop new ideas of hyptheses to test with your new tools.

What about a difficult relationship issue with a colleague or peer? How often do we make assumptions and not take the time to see through the darkness and really understand what is being said. One of the values that I was taught by Procter & Gamble was; Seek to understand, then be understood. High emotions can create darkness, clouding issues and hiding true feelings, being able to sense effectively through this darkness is not just a work skill but a life skill.   

Even in the dark there are always things to see.


Rebranding lessons of hibu / yell.com

Over the last couple of weeks yell.com has been rebranding as hibu. This is the latest example, in a very undistinguished line, of such rebranding failures.

When the best a CEO can muster about his companies' latest rebranding is this quote below you know the company is in deep, deep trouble. 

'don't read anything into it….It doesn't have any pure meaning behind it. It needed to be short, easy to pronounce and to sound edgy and innovative. It doesn't mean a lot by itself, but if you turn the clock back, neither did Apple and Google or Yahoo!' 

Mike Pocock is the CEO of hibu which in the latest example of rebranding has became the new name for Yell.com. Yell.com has been through at least a couple of major rebrands as it struggles to make any sense of it's Yellow Pages listing business model in the internet age. They recently acquired Moonfruit.com as a way of trying to help SMEs and their internet presence. hibu or as the company might have us write: hibü is the latest work from Landor – that purveyor of snake oil to companies with more shareholder money than sense. I am sure that the Landor team are seething as they read the quotes from the CEO on their beautiful retina displays. 

The rebranding of hibu illustrates some of the key mistakes that are made far too often as a company makes the decision to rebrand and change name: 

1. The new name doesn't mean anything to anyone:

This is most likely to have been dressed up as a benefit by the inventors of the brand hibu. It isn't. Given the companies massive financial issues they are not going to be able to afford a huge marketing budget to vest this meaningless word with brand associations. They may think that it is a positive move dropping all references and equity built up in Yell.com or indeed Yellow Pages but to eschew these assets is foolhardy. The fact that they have gone for the immediate rebrand, rather than a phased approach, again make the journey to establishing the new brand very hard. The rebrand has very little logic – this taken from the hibu website exemplifies the problem: 

To meet the ever changing needs of our merchants and our consumers, we are transforming our business to be more digitally led. We are making it possible for our consumers to connect with our merchants how they want, whenever they want. We are developing innovative new products and a dynamic new brand signals that we are a digital business of the future. When people connect, communities thrive, and we are a vital connection in an ever changing world. That's why we have changed from Yell to hibu.

Now I may be missing something but this paragraph makes no sense as a logic for the rebranding. There is no reason why the move of the business into digital has delivered the name hibu, argubly Yell.com is a more digitally led name. 

2. A brand optimised for the internet age and search?

I bet this was a big part of the pitch for rebranding. I'm sure Landor will have rolled out a 28 year old 'internet and search expert' to bamboozle the board with promises about how this name because of it's construction and newness was going to deliver exceptional power in ranking on Google. This is of course generally an absolute load of old tosh but is so common to hear now – it's the reason for the rash of names with a double "o" in them for example. There was an idea floating around that Google somehow favoured certain combination of letters because they were less competitive to rank on hence Ooyala and the like. The secret to ranking on Google is to deliver high quality content and make your pages search friendly – if anything non descriptive names make it harder to rank not easier. 

3. Lack of engagement from the top down?

From the comments from top management in the press they don't seem that committed to the rebranding and this makes me suspect that the organisation hasn't been engaged in the hibu rebranding process. This is the most common mistake that is made when trying to change a culture, a name, or a business model. It's the people within the organisation that should feel vested in the new name and making it's promises come alive. However most engagement processes start with the brand book or internal roll out campaign once all the decisions have been made. Rebranding and brand renaming needs to come from within and this requires engagement in the process from the very beginning. 

4. A brand name just trying too hard… 

Like Consignia or Monday, hibu is a name that is just trying too hard. I know that's a very difficult thing to substantiate but there is something in these names that come from a process that is vested in focusgrouping and whiteboarding – they lack authenticity. They are artificial creations rather than really coming from a place of organisational difference. Apple as a brand name works for that organisation (or it used to) because it encapsulates the "think different" logic that was Steve Jobs' brilliance. Google works because it somehow embodies the geekiness of that organisation based on algorithms, advanced maths and technology. hibu is just trying to be cool and doesn't embody any of the attributes of that organisation.

Given their latest results are flatlining I think rebranding yell.com is very unlikely to be the knight in shining armour coming along to rescue and somehow give meaning to the company. Yell.com was a smart way of attempting to link the past with the future – it had a logic and could have had a personality. hibu doesn't mean anything to anyone and because of this it is facing an uphill struggle. 

What do you think of this rebranding and renaming? Do you like the name hibu? Leave a comment below and get involved. 



What is marketing exactly? This most basic of questions was fired at me by one of my blog readers the other day who posed the question in the context the massive changes wrought by digital marketing, branding, dissatisfaction with marketing teams and directors – so what is marketing today? 

The guru of marketing Dr. Philip Kotler defines marketing as “the science and art of exploring, creating, and delivering value to satisfy the needs of a target market at a profit. Marketing identifies unfulfilled needs and desires. It defines, measures and quantifies the size of the identified market and the profit potential. It pinpoints which segments the company is capable of serving best and it designs and promotes the appropriate products and services.”

This is a fine definition of marketing. For more definitions check this out.

But despite this there is no doubt that answering the question "what is marketing?" is more confusing today than ever before. Suddenly marketers can be responsible for a diverse set of functions from core marketing, sales, social media, brand, customer experience, advertising, proposition and product management. But what is at our core and still relevant today as we define marketing and it's role?

From Marketing Management to Guerrilla Marketing to All Marketers are Liars whatever text you read there is always commonality in answering the question of what is marketing for me I boil it down to: 

What is marketing? Great marketing makes the connection between something somebody wants / needs and a product or service – and it does this profitably. 

what is marketing

Let's break this answer to the "what is marketing' question a little further: 

The Need or Want:

marketing owns uniquely the understanding of customer needs and desires

The Product or the Service:

marketing should contribute significantly to the development of the product and the offer to the customer that will tap into the need or desire

Make the connection between need/want and the product/service:

marketing by owning the communication of the product or service owns uniquely the process of mentally joining the dots for the consumer from want or need to the particular product or service


marketing needs to complete the identification, development and connection process so that a profit is left at the end – getting the numbers right is the key deliverable.

What is marketing? Identifying great examples of marketing practise

There are many, many examples of marketing that fulfills some of these criteria but there aren't many examples of marketing that does all four. When you manage it though marketing and business magic can be created – the iPhone is an exquisite example of clear consumer need, a fantastic product, great connections through amazing pitching and advertising of the product all coming together to deliver huge profitability. Keeping with technology, on the other hand, I am unconvinced by Windows 8 or the Surface Tablet.  Whilst targeting an established need these products don't deliver unique value compellingly enough, the communications creating connections in peoples' minds are confused. I doubt either will be profitable in the medium to long term.

What is marketing? Analysis of technology examples. 

What is marketing examples iPhone surface tablet acer netbook windows 8

So how do you create great marketing?

Marketing shouldn't be more complex than educated commonsense: to really understand your customer by listening and learning intently, then think and dream deeply about what they need now and in the future, work with colleagues from across the business to create a wonderful product and service that you can be really proud of, would recommend without fear, and can be delivered profitably, then finally go have some fun telling the story of how you went from consumer need to brilliant delivery. Monitor and analyse everything so that you can ensure that the system of capturing value from a consumer need is profitable for your business. 

So in answering the question "What is marketing?" can we also split out the difference between marketing and sales? Yes I think so: sales is only concerned with the process of shifting as many units of a product or service as possible profitably – a vital process. But marketing helps a company move from ideation through to customer satisfaction profitably. Of course the best sales leaders will understand and influence the entire value creation process but they aren't responsible for it if there is a good marketing team delivering. 

Over the coming weeks I'm going to be delving into more aspects of "What is Marketing?" so please sign up to this blog. And as ever if you have ideas, thoughts and comments please share.

What is your view on the question "what is marketing"?


Other resources for you to read about What is marketing?: 

What is this thing called content? from this blog

A couple of good videos on What is marketing from The Chartered Institute of Marketing

If you are interested in enhancing your marketing career then check out my new training online course – currently 50% off: How to Become a Marketing Director


Business Vision: I was recently asked by a major corporation to prepare a talk on "Business vision" and how to create them. I told two stories one of Citigroup a massive bank and it's flawed vision and one about a much smaller clothing business Patagonia and it's inspirational leader. 

This screencast is a 20 minute version of the hour presentation buts gives you the key points of the stories. 

The key points illustrated by these compelling stories of success and failure around setting a business vision are: 

  • Business Vision requires leadership that listens and learns but can also lead from the front
  • Business Vision requires head and heart to be compelling
  • Business Vision needs to be creative but also pragmatic to be effective 

Here is a great article from inc.com about creating business vision that is well worth reading. 

What do you think of business vision?

What do you think about business and brand visions? Do they inspire you to feel great about the business you work in or run and it's business vision? Leave a comment!

If you want to see the full presentation including the videos then visit the presentation on Prezi.com.

You can also see me speaking here.

Want me to speak at your business or team event? I regularly speak about trust, business vision, brands, marketing or a wide range of topics tailored to your event – please get in touch.